Children who receive a disproportionate amount of negative attention will misbehave more often; this is a basic tenet of child psychology. It helps to see the games industry this way, especially in cases like Sony's recent PR stunt for God of War II. To promote the violent action game rooted in Greek mythology, the publisher hosted a party with topless women and a decapitated goat as the centrepiece.

Reactions to the incident were predictable. Animal rights campaigners complained, bloodsports advocates shrugged, and gamers considered it one of the final nails in Sony Computer Entertainment's ever-more-apparent coffin. But will it have any effect on God of War II's sales? There are those who are planning to boycott Sony as a result of the grotesque launch, but will all the negative attention actually end up giving the game greater exposure and, consequently, better sales?

Questionable content

Controversy has certainly shifted games in the past. One needn't look much further than Rockstar Games for evidence: Canis Canem Edit (né Bully), Manhunt, and of course the Grand Theft Auto (GTA) series have all arguably become successes because of their questionable content and the outrage surrounding them. In the case of GTA, that included Senator Hillary Clinton, who in 2005 noted that "there is no doubting the fact that the widespread availability of sexually explicit and graphically violent video games makes the challenge of parenting much harder".

Similarly, the Postal games, an ultraviolent and racist series by Running With Scissors, have - despite being commonly regarded as poor-quality - achieved enough exposure to be adapted into a film directed by Uwe Boll. Elsewhere, gamers seem not only attracted to controversial content, but actually demand it.

The trend for second world war shooter games, for example, is a direct result of how popular these titles tend to become, even though they essentially make gameplay out of one of the biggest wars in modern history.

None of this rings true to Rodney Walker of Rockstar Game. He thinks the success of his company's games has nothing to do with the heated discourse they have generated - if anything, he believes that it has hindered sales - and everything to do with quality.

"There's this casual assumption that any publicity is good for entertainment," he says, "but that's not actually how it works. It's so obvious that researched, constructive criticism that talks about the game mechanics, story elements and so on is more likely to influence a person into buying a game than someone who says, 'Here's this terrible thing.'

"It's really insulting to what we all know about our favourite entertainment medium to think we choose it based on negative publicity, as opposed to proper critique. That kind of sensationalism doesn't contribute in any way. That sort of political and academic criticism has had a negative effect on the development of new media. If we're trying to attract an audience that has never played a videogame, there's no way hearing a political or academic leader describe it critically will enhance your appreciation of it.

"And in practical terms, where there's hostile criticism of videogames, that tends to affect where they can be sold and marketed - immediately. And that's precisely because of the gaps in media literacy. There's a stricter standard for new media than established media, and new media can't bear as much hostile criticism as established media. There's just no evidence to suggest it helps the industry or the medium to have people mischaracterise it. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite."

It's too early to tell whether GSC Game World's S.T.A.L.K.E.R., released in March, has managed to avoid the pitfalls Walker mentions. Still, its premise has certainly raised more than a few eyebrows since the game's announcement in 2001. It's a sandbox game, like the GTA series, where players can approach the virtual world around them with relative freedom. The odd part is that the sandbox in question happens to be the Chernobyl exclusion zone, site of the 1986 Chernobyl accident in which the roof of a Ukrainian nuclear reactor blew off during a test.

It's not unusual to see other areas of the arts basing works on tragic situations and events, but as many critics of the games industry have pointed out, the interactivity of videogames means that the player is immersed in their fantasy worlds. Players in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. aren't just watching or reading a "what if?" about one of the most contaminated areas on Earth; they're moving around in it and exploring it. What's more, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s Chernobyl now has to deal with the added stress of violent mutated wildlife, zombies and opportunistic militant treasure hunters. (Those at least are fantasy.)

With Chernobyl still a very real problem - the concrete sarcophagus that covers the plant is crumbling, able to release further radioactive material into the atmosphere - it might seem a little tactless of GSC (whose office isn't that far from Chernobyl) to make fantasy out of genuine tragedy.

However, GSC has argued all the way through that the Chernobyl setting is perfect for a game of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s scope. The fact that it is more or less completely abandoned, that the Soviet government kept much of the incident a secret from the world, and that radiation and mutants are familiar science fiction bedfellows all weave into GSC's vision of a truly eerie and unsettling game. And judging by S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s initial sales and reviews, gamers seem to agree.

Sergiy Grygorovych, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.'s lead designer, elaborates: "Here in Ukraine, we are surrounded by splinters of the Soviet empire - forgotten productions, catacombs, neglected military facilities and so on. For example, our office is located at a no longer functioning Soviet factory. Walking here can't leave you untouched - it compares to a time that froze, a place of man-made catastrophe. Thus, we decided it's going to be a great setting for the game."

Improbably, Chernobyl officials have been supportive. "To many people's surprise," Grygorovych says: "We got nothing but support from the Chernobyl officials. We even have some game fans among the power plant administration. They really liked the ideas behind the game and the way the world of the zone looks. One of them became an instant game fan when he recognised his office in one of the early game trailers. People working in Chernobyl helped us with information, photos, documentaries ... without this the game wouldn't be as authentic and believable."

Part of their enthusiasm may stem from GSC's intentions for the game: they want S.T.A.L.K.E.R. to have a social message. By journeying through a post-apocalyptic world, players are supposed to become more aware of the problems Chernobyl still poses and the dangers of being careless with science.

"We want to remind people of the still existing problem of Chernobyl," Grygorovych says. "Secondly, by showing an alternative history of Chernobyl, the so-to-speak worst scenario, we'd like to create a kind of warning to mankind to prevent any possible fatal mistakes in the future."

Even if S.T.A.L.K.E.R. doesn't achieve this lofty goal - although, it must be admitted, GSC has been very careful with its treatment of the zone; at no point does the game make light of the Chernobyl situation - developing the game has taught GSC quite a bit about the incident.

Public scorn

"Although we were witnesses of the accident in 1986," Grygorovych recalls, "we didn't know much about the real Chernobyl and how it looks before we went there ourselves in 2002. Going there was insane, and many people thought us crazy; we all understood that the place is far from safe. We took thousands of photos of the exclusion zone sites, which we later used as textures for the game. We tried to pick up every bit of information we could find and which could be useful for the game story or visuals. Our goal was to make the zone look authentic, with its notorious spots easily recognisable. In this respect, the trips to the zone were priceless."

GSC's decision to set S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in Chernobyl may have been controversial, but the work they've put into respectfully recreating the exclusion zone seems to have saved the game from the public scorn GTA has endured since 1997. Has the game's shocking premise helped or hindered its sales? It's difficult to say, but the game's insanely long development cycle seems to have yielded some deep and fascinating gameplay. And history shows that that is what ultimately keeps games selling - not outrage.

· If you'd like to comment on any aspect of Technology Guardian, send your emails to tech@guardian.co.uk